What is Britain had not entered WWII

[ShadesWolf]

Based on "What if Nazi Germany did not invade Poland?" thread from Shaka Khan

Then I have a question for you ?

What would have happened if Britain and agreed not to enter the war, hence the empire would not have got involved and Hitler would have had a free hand in europe.

Would Western Europe be a German super state and would Britain still have her empire ?
Would we have all the problems in Africa and the middle east ?
would Japan rule the East ?

[econ21]

My first guess it that not much would have changed. Perhapst the main impact would be greater Soviet influence in a post-war Europe.

Germany would still have stopped in the West about where she stopped (Vichy). She would still have turned East. She probably still would have been beaten by Russia, although it would have been harder due to a likely reduction in the UK/US aid and the possible absence of a second front.

Japan and US would still have come to blows and the US still triumphed. Given Hitler's folly and US concern over Nazi supremacy in Europe, the European and Pacific wars would still have become united in a World War. Regardless of how it played out, it is hard to see the US + USSR losing to Germany + Japan.

Perhaps the main difference is that US landings in Europe would have been delayed or perhaps even never happened, giving the Soviets more influence. Without the UK as a staging point, it would have been much harder for the US to invade Europe. And without the UK as an ally, she might have been less inclined to try. However, the US did manage to cover large distances in the Pacific War, so landings in North Africa or elsewhere as a staging point are still conceivable. And fear of Nazi or Soviet hegemony in Europe would still have provided a rationale for direct intervention.

Britain would still have lost her Empire. Not fighting a war might have kept her stronger (although this is dubious, at least in a military and moral sense). But there was no way she could hold on to India or Africa, with millions of restless people demanding independence and an anti-colonial US and USSR as superpowers.

I just don't see the UK's role as being decisive in WW2, unlike that of the USSR or USA.

[Franconicus]

This is pure speculation!

But alright!

Let's assume that Britain woud have accepted that Germany invades Poland. Then it would have accepted that Germany would dominate the continent and that Germany would invade the USSR and fight Communism. This is not completly unlikely, Hitler always thought it would come this way.

Then there would have been no German / British war. Hitler never intended to attack Britain or the colonies. What about France? Probably France would not have dared to attack Germany. If Hitler was sure that France was no threat, he would have concentrated on the USSR. Maybe there would have been a change in the French government towards a pro-German, pro-European and maybe pro Fascistic government.

Hitler would have invaded Yugoslavia (perhaps) but not Greece. There would have been no German troops in Italy. There would have been no German subs in the Atlantic and no Allied blockade.

Hitler would have invaded the USSR. Maybe he would have won that war (although you should not underestimate the Soviets).

There would have been no cooperation between Germany and Japan. Britain, France and even the Netherlands would have been able to concentrate their fleets at the Pacific and there would have been no Japanese expansion.

[Mount Suribachi]

First of all, we should remember that following Chamberlains resignation Halifax was actually first in line to be the new PM, it was only when he failed to step forward and take the job that Churchill became PM. Halifax, lest we forget, was in favour of negotiating a peace with Germany at this point.

After that, it actually comes down to the age old question - could the Soviets have defeated Germany on their own? I'm actually one of the few who say no they couldn't. Without Britain in the war, America would not be at war with Germany, and between them both countries supplied huge amounts of materiel to Russia, as well as the fact that a significant chunk of the German army had to be devoted to fighting in Africa, Italy and France.

No UK/US means no support for the resistance in occupied Europe, means less troops required to garrison them, means more troops on the Eastern Front. Furthermore, reading accounts by resistance fighters, early in the war the occupied countries were garrisoned by old men and low quality units. As the resistance intensified veteran units began to perform garrison duties

No UK/US means no threat of invasion. From memory the Germans had 58 divisions in Northern France on D-Day, many of them high quality, veteran units. What difference would just half of those units have made in the East?

No UK/US means no war in N Africa. The Germans lost more men in Tunisia than they lost at Stalingrad.

No UK/US means no bomber offensive. Aside from the disruption this caused to German production of materiel and oil, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe, one cannot underestimate the effect that this had in terms of AAA. 75% of all 88mm guns produced had their barrels pointed at the sky to protect Germany from Allied bombers. There were 40,000 AA guns on the Kahmhuber line. What would those tens of thousands of 88s have done on the Eastern Front shooting at T-34s instead of Lancasters?

[Shaka_Khan]

The West was wary of both the Nazis and the Soviets. If the Soviets and the Germans somehow fought each other without invading another country, then France and Britain would probably have been happy to stay neutral.

[ShadesPanther]

The West was wary of both the Nazis and the Soviets. If the Soviets and the Germans somehow fought each other without invading another country, then France and Britain would probably have been happy to stay neutral.

And then crush the winner while it was weakened. Such is life ~;)

[spmetla]

If Britain had not entered the war a lot of things would have not happened as well. The Germans wouldn't have need to secure their Scandinavian steel supply so no Norwiegen invasion would have been nessesary. The Invasion of France (Assuming they still go through Belgium) would have ended a short bit sooner (No British Expeditary force). The Italians would have been able to retain Lybia and Ethiopia.
Assuming then that the Germans would still have decided to invaded the USSR in 1941 that would have probably have happened a few months sooner because they either wouldn't have needed to help the Italians in Greece or perhaps Italy might not have even invaded Greece. This earlier invasion would probably have allowed the Germans to advance farther faster because they wouldn't have needed to have entire Luftflotten (Air Fleets) covering Britain and the Mediterrean. Also the Germans would have had more material at their disposal and without Allied Bombings on Germany and occupied France lost material would be more easily replaced. The Luftwaffe would also have had many more planes and would have been able to retain the experienced cadre that were lost in the Battle of Britain and the Mediteranean. Also no Desert Fox!
Taking this into mind the Germans would have probably been able to have at least stepped foot in Moscow before winter would have set in. Assuming then that Soviets kept on fighting instead of surrendering it would have become more of a war of attrition then. The Soviets wouldn't have been able to recieve any lend lease (it did happen and help) and possibly not US lend lease. Thinking about it the framework for Lend Lease was only set up to help Britain and I doubt that Roosevelt would have gone out of the way to set up a system to help Communists.
I believe that the Germans would have then been strong enough to take on the Soviet Union. With a single front war the Germans would have been able to take European Russia. Granted the Russians had plenty of manpower but if there was no foriegn aid the Soviets wouldn't have been able to outproduce the Germans.
The Japanese would probably still gone to war with the US but there would probably have been no Pearl Harbor attack because that plan was inspired by an early WWII attack on an Italian navy port by a British carrier force that sunk several heavy ships. How the US would have fared in the Great Fleet battle scheme that the Japanese had I don't know, would probably be an even match between the capital ships but then the Japanese would have had the more experienced pilots. Also with no Britain as a launch point for Invasion a Europe first policy would have been impossible and the Atlantic would probably have just been a battle of sea lanes by the US against Uboats and a defensive action against US naval probes by the Kriegsmarines surface force. The Germans would probably have finished their aircraft carrier and their surface fleet would have not been damaged by the British as badly (especially from the lack of a Norwegian campaign). The Japanese also wouldn't have need to have forces in Burma or defending against Australia so they would have more forces to continue their war against China or to pit against the island hopping campaign of the Americans (supposing that was still the strategy chosen).
The Japanese-German/Italian Sea lanes would have remained open (Ethiopia to Japan) and who knows what material and technology would have been transfered.
American Military technologies wouldn't have advanced as far (except for their continuing nuclear program) the P 51 would never have been because it was designed for the British (because the US refused to build existing British war machines because they thought a British defeat was imminent)and even if it was built anyhow it would probably have still held on to those crappy Allison engines. American tank technology would probably have slowly advanced but wouldn't have benefited from the lessons learned by the British in North Africa, maybe the Grant tank would have been the pinnacle for a while.
As a side note the Spanish might have decided to join the war but who knows.

Anyhow my summary, Germans beat or stalemate USSR, Japan vs America is even match but probably US victory after invasion of Japan (I doubt that the B29 would have been developed if the Army Air Corps hadn't had the experince of bombing Germany) or it would have been a stalemate war with an eventual truce.

So yes German Europe, Italians still have small Empire and Japan vs US is only wildcard.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I don't think Britain would have been able to stay out of the war. It was Mussolini's ambition to take the British colonies in North and East Africa, so if Britain hadn't set up an ultimatum and taken part in the war from start they would have been drawn into it. The only difference is that the British would have suffered a lot more casualties and maybe they'd even have run a risk of being invaded (especially if the Germans had been able to take over the ships of the Vichy fleet), and less chances of Free French, Free Polish and other exile forces being formed. But the key question is if Britain staying out of the war would have led to very different high-level strategical decisions from the German leadership. Would they have invaded a country they didn't historically invade? And would they have chosen different occupation policies in for example France? There would still have been room for so much different decisions in those aspects that the war could have gone either way depending on what decisions were made.

[Aetius the Last Roman]

Let's not forget that the invasion of Greece setback Operation Barbarossa for a month, critical time which the Germans could have used to take Moscow.

Arguably German victory would be most likely with this in mind.

[Justiciar]

Less anti-fascism, and a possible government under Mosley?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What would have happened if Britain and agreed not to enter the war, hence the empire would not have got involved and Hitler would have had a free hand in europe.

Would Western Europe be a German super state and would Britain still have her empire ?
Would we have all the problems in Africa and the middle east ?
would Japan rule the East ?

Actually, I doubt Germany would have had a "free hand," at least in the West. Had Britain and France not opted to declare their intent to defend Poland, or had they failed to honor the promise, Germany would have still had to tread wary in order to avoid British entry into the war. After the deaths on the Somme, Britain could hardly have let Belgium succumb without taking Germany to task.

Germany would likely have had what Hitler had always hoped for, the time to absorb Poland, expand and improve the armed forces -- huge changes were made in the tank forces following the Polish experience -- and prepared for what he had always sought, "living room" in the East. Since it took Hitler's best efforts to hamstring his panzers in 1941 and prevent the defeat of the Soviets as it was, I suspect that a war begun in June of 1940, with the Soviet formations still recovering from their near-Pyrrhic victory in Finland, would likely have ended in a German win. With Germany dominating the Ukraine and the resources of much of European Russia (and the Caucasus?), Germany could have quickly gobbled up the rest of Central Europe and become the world's foremost power.

Britain's empire would have been lost anyway. Marxism and Ghandiism -- without the damage done by a World War -- would have rung its death knell anyway. However, I think a lot more of the former Empire would be like South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand. Strong ties would have been more likely.

Japan would have been in a pickle. The only reason they went for broke in the Pacific was a belief that the weakened powers in Europe could no longer support efforts to control their Pacific colonies and that they were ripe for the picking. Would they have attacked if faced by English and Dutch forces with solid support from home? Much more questionable.

[Papewaio]

The ties are pretty strong because Britain let its colonies become self governing... some a bit earlier then WWII.

The Statue of Westminster 1931 is the basis in part of the Commonwealth... and if you follow the Commonwealth games you can see a lot of nations happily getting along with the Brits.

Also although a lot of people think that Pakistan is a friend of UK through the US on TWOT... it is actually the other way round... Pakistan is friendly towards the west because of its ties to the UK... US would have more friends if they could play cricket. :laugh4:

[ShadesWolf]

Ok now for my view on this.....
the following is quoted from Niall ferguson : Empire - how Britain made the modern world. The first part is based on ww1 and the second ww2


Yet there was an illusory quality to Britannia's victorious peace. True the empire had never been so big. But nor had the costs of victory, by comparison with which the economic value of these new territories was negligible, if not negative. No combatant power spent as much on the war as Britain, who's total expenditure amounted to just under £10 billion.

The creeping crisis of confidence in Empire had its roots in the crippling price Britain had paid for its victory over Germany in WW1. The death toll for the British Isles alone was around 3/4 of a million, one in sixteen of all male adults between fifteen and fify. The economic cost was harder to calculate.....

..... One reason for this was the creation of huge new debts as a result of the war: not just the German reparation debt, but also the whole complex of debts the victorious allies owed one another.


...... The irony was that even as the empire grew more economically important, its defence sank inexorably down the list of political priorities. Under pressure from voters to honour wartime pledges to build 'homes fit for heroes', not to mention hospitals and high schools, British politicians first neglected and then simply forgot about imperial defence. In the ten years to 1932 the defence budget was cut by more than a third - at a time when French and Italian spending rose by 60 and 55 percent.

Every year until 1932 'the ten-year rule' was renewed and every year new spending was put off. The rationale was straightforward: It was impossible for us to contemplate a simultaneous was against Japan and Germany; we simply cannot afford the expenditure involved.... between 1928 and 1940 was to postpone a war - not look ahead.

In 1918 Britain had won the war on the western front by a huge feat of military modernization. In the 1920s nearly everything that had been learned was forgotten in the name of economy. War had acted as a forcing house for a host of new military techs - the tank, submarine and the armed aeroplane. To secure its post war future, the empire needed to invest in all of these. It did nothing of the kind




Britain was in no position at the start of the second world war to fight another war, so close to the first. The army was still based on the army that ended WW1. No major expenditure had been spent on upgrading the armed forces. Hence money was needed from somewhere to do this.



" The bottom line was ,of course, the economy. Exhausted by the cost of victory, denied the fresh start that followed defeat for Germany & Japan, Britain was simply no longer able to bear the cost of Empire. Nationalist insurgency and new military technology made imperial defence much more expensive than before.

Between 1947 & 1987 British defence expenditure had amounted to 5.8% of GDP. A century before it was a mere 2.6%. In the 19th century Britain had financed her chrooic trade deficit with the income from a vast overseas investment portfolio. That had now been replaced with a crushing foriegn debt burden, and the treasury had to meet the much larger costs of nationalized health care, transport and industry.

....... To meet the political and military expenditure overseas' that Britain turned to the US for a loan when the war - and a lend-lease - ended in 1945. BUT the conditions attached to the loan at once had the effect of undermining British overseas power. In return for $3.75 billion, of which the last instalment is due to be repaid in 2006, the Americans insisted that the pound be made convertible into dollar within twelve months. The run on the band of England's reserves this caused was the first of the succession of sterling crises that were to punctuate Britains retreat from Empire."

The cost of the second world war was even greater than that of the first. Britain had to borrow money from the US to fund this. Added to this the welfare state and its no wonder that the empire was lost. Economically is was to expensive and part of the agreement with the US was to give up the colonies. Hence no war and Britain might have been able to spend her money more wisely.

As for the question of the military outcome........
What would have happened if Britain had not declared war in 1939. Italy and Japan jumps to mind straight away.
- Would Japan have attacked in the east if Britain was not fighting against Germany. Maybe not, hence it would have had a free hand with its war in china, and maybe it might still have china. But it wanted an empire so would it have left it at that. What about Russia, French Indo-China and the Dutch terrortories. I cannot see Japan not waiting at least one of these, hence at least some of the european powers might have been bought in. If no pearl harbor, would USA have fought in the East, who knows.
- Italy would she have attacked British outposts in N.Africa and the middle east. Italy wanted an empire if she couldnt have these then what could she have. Either nothing, which I find a little hard to follow, or maybe she would have gone for the French lands in N.Africa.


Back in Europe, once Germany had taken Poland, what would they have done next ?
France or Russia.
- France either way could have bought Japan and Italy into the war as a German allies. French land in far east for Japan and French land in N.Africa for Italy.
- Russia could have bought Japan into the war with the eastern Russian provinces.

Even with British limited help France fell, so without help it would have also fell. Therefore to the eternal question of Russia. Could Hitler have attacked Russia any earlier ? If France had not declared war in 1939 then the Answer is probably yes. What would have stopped the June 1941 Barbarossa campaign being in 1940 instead. Probably nothing and seeing that Finland caused Russia such a problem, you could argue that Russia might have fallen. If Germany had taken Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, it would have controlled a vast area - Ukraine, Bukovia, Byelorusa etc....... would this pressure and no ourside help have forced Russia into a humiliating peace agreement ?

If France had declared in 1939 then the war might have followed a similar plan and Barbarossa would have been in 1941. But yet again without a conflict in N.Africa with Britain and no battle of Britain Hitler would have had more resources at his disposal. Rommel for one !!

Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to was that 'The British Empire' was right to declare war, but the cost of fighting and being victorious was that it had to be eliminated. Hence some of the problems we see today around the world, ie the middle east, Africa are a direct result of Russian and American dislike of colonial empire. Take a look at the major conflicts since WW2, Suez, Korea, Vietnam and 'war on terror' with empire, and not just the British, I also include French, Dutch etc., would we have had these conflicts ?

Korea was part of the Japanese empire, would we have had the korean cold war conflict ?
Vietnam was also a result of the coldwar, if France had of held onto Indo-china would we have had Vietnam and the killing fields ?
Finally the middle east was created as a result of the aftermass of WW1 and the downfall on the Ottoman empire, Britain could not economically afford to run the area after WW2 hence we now have the mess of what we see today.

I appreciate most people, especially US and the more left wing (liberals) will say Im talking out of my ####, but empire is not always negative. Do we look on the Roman empire as being negative !

[spmetla]

To be honest Shadeswolf I wish that Britain had been able to afford and continue it's empire and I wish the US would have helped a sorta greater commonwealth or something.

[Justiciar]

Had it only held on a few centuries longer, eh? ~:) Would have become an autonimous part of the Empire like Australia.. give or take a few riots. I'm not a great fan of Britain's imperial past, but there may well have been a more positive outcome to certain world events (the chances are things would be worse, but we'll never know) had the honest Imperialism not been a casualty of the World Wars. Might be worth a thread of it's own. What if the European Empires were still at it?

[IliaDN]

My first guess it that not much would have changed. Perhapst the main impact would be greater Soviet influence in a post-war Europe.

Germany would still have stopped in the West about where she stopped (Vichy). She would still have turned East. She probably still would have been beaten by Russia, although it would have been harder due to a likely reduction in the UK/US aid and the possible absence of a second front.

Japan and US would still have come to blows and the US still triumphed. Given Hitler's folly and US concern over Nazi supremacy in Europe, the European and Pacific wars would still have become united in a World War. Regardless of how it played out, it is hard to see the US + USSR losing to Germany + Japan.

Perhaps the main difference is that US landings in Europe would have been delayed or perhaps even never happened, giving the Soviets more influence. Without the UK as a staging point, it would have been much harder for the US to invade Europe. And without the UK as an ally, she might have been less inclined to try. However, the US did manage to cover large distances in the Pacific War, so landings in North Africa or elsewhere as a staging point are still conceivable. And fear of Nazi or Soviet hegemony in Europe would still have provided a rationale for direct intervention.

Britain would still have lost her Empire. Not fighting a war might have kept her stronger (although this is dubious, at least in a military and moral sense). But there was no way she could hold on to India or Africa, with millions of restless people demanding independence and an anti-colonial US and USSR as superpowers.

I just don't see the UK's role as being decisive in WW2, unlike that of the USSR or USA.
Just my opinion...

[ehooper66]

with no dak in Africa and no 200,000 troops stationed in Norway and getting the 500,000 that were stationed in france along with all of their air force now committed to Russia the war would be over at the latest September 1942

[Seamus Fermanagh]

with no dak in Africa and no 200,000 troops stationed in Norway and getting the 500,000 that were stationed in france along with all of their air force now committed to Russia the war would be over at the latest September 1942

Too many variables to make that claim, though I lean towards your view of a Nazi victory over the Soviets.

Pretty good necrothredia effort

[ReluctantSamurai]

To me there is a fatal flaw in the idea that Britain would just stand by and allow it's closest ally at the time, France, to be overrun by the Nazi's. Hitler certainly had his eye on the Soviet Union from the beginning, but he could not allow the French Army (which, IIRC, was larger in terms of manpower than the German Army) to stand intact in his rear while he conducted military operations to the East. Hitler made a lot of stupid military moves, but leaving the French intact on his rear while he invaded the SU wouldn't have been one of them.

Britain would lose all political credibility if it stood by while Germany invaded France.

As far as affecting Japan's intentions in the Pacific, Britain would inevitably be draw in to the war because the Japanese simply could not afford to leave the major naval base of Singapore in the hands of the British while they took over the oilfields of the DEI. And oil was the primary factor in Japan's planning for war in the Pacific.

Bottom line...there is no conceivable way that Britain would not enter the war, either to honor it's commitment to France, or to defend it's interests in the Pacific.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The only way for Britain to have not entered the war would have been for BOTH France and England to acquiesce to the invasion of Poland. It would appear that they hoped against hope that by signaling that both France and Britain would support Poland (following Germany's conquest of Czechoslovakia the preceding March and in full knowledge that they would never be able to physically support Poland) that Hitler would stop and back away from a general war. But as others in this thread have suggested, the West had had enough. Chamberlin would have been replaced quickly if he had not finally taken a stand.

After his long string of successes in brinksmanship, Hitler simply didn't think the West would have the nerve to stop him. When his hoped for successes in Denmark, Norway, and eventually France materialized, he really did view it as a possibility that England would sue for peace rather than fight an unwinnable war against Germany. Historians suggest that the British would likely have received generous terms as well -- at the price of ceding Europe entirely to the Nazis and Fascists. And there were English pols who advocated just such a course, believing that it would have preserved the Empire (which was doomed long since by the sweep of history, WW2 at best hastened it a bit).

[ReluctantSamurai]

a possibility that England would sue for peace rather than fight an unwinnable war against Germany

That's different than what the discussion topic suggests...that Britain does not enter the war at all. I can't see that happening, but Britain suing for peace after Dunkirk is certainly within the realm of possibility.

However, there's still the Far East, and Japan is going to eliminate Singapore when it takes the DEI...they simply have to for strategic reasons. Then what? Granted the alliance between Germany and Japan was mostly a paper affair, but what does Germany do when Britain is forced to declare war on Japan? I can't see them not doing anything to hold up their end of the alliance:shrug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That's different than what the discussion topic suggests...that Britain does not enter the war at all. I can't see that happening, but Britain suing for peace after Dunkirk is certainly within the realm of possibility. I thought I addressed that. I was pointing out how a British DoW might have been found underwhelming by AH in terms of influencing his decision (which was the Brit intent behind the declaration of support for Poland), since he really thought he would win on the continent and England would bow out rather than keep up the fight against such odds. The not entering the war angle, as I said, would have been both France and England not guaranteeing Poland. I cannot see either government making such a statement solo at that juncture.


However, there's still the Far East, and Japan is going to eliminate Singapore when it takes the DEI...they simply have to for strategic reasons. Then what? Granted the alliance between Germany and Japan was mostly a paper affair, but what does Germany do when Britain is forced to declare war on Japan? I can't see them not doing anything to hold up their end of the alliance:shrug:

I have to agree here. Had Malaya been independent the Japanese might have bypassed Singapore and Hong Kong in favor of the DEI only, but Malaya with its resources was always on their to do list. Since the Brits controlled it, they would have likely gone after it regardless.

However, it is not impossible that the entire Japanese attack would have been re-thought if Britain had NOT been at war in the West and DID ramp up forces, defenses, and RN deployment to Singapore. That is, as you will quickly note, a LOT of 'ifs.'

[ReluctantSamurai]

However, it is not impossible that the entire Japanese attack would have been re-thought if Britain had NOT been at war in the West and DID ramp up forces

After FDR's July 1940 embargo, what other course is available to the Japanese?

[Beskar]

After FDR's July 1940 embargo, what other course is available to the Japanese?

Not stab the sleeping giant in the eyes?

[ReluctantSamurai]

Given that Japan had only about 2yrs of oil reserves at that time, and that they had, as of 1941, military superiority, stabbing the "sleeping giant" in the eyes was practically the only recourse:shrug:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Given that Japan had only about 2yrs of oil reserves at that time, and that they had, as of 1941, military superiority, stabbing the "sleeping giant" in the eyes was practically the only recourse:shrug:

I would add that their culture was as or more responsible though. Curtailing their activities in China and pulling back to Manchuria would, in some ways, have been a BETTER use of resources and would have likely cancelled the embargoes. 'Face' dictated that the Army simply could NOT do that and could not accept a slower approach to establishing their resource empire. It was the sense of insult engendered by US pressure as much as the economic impact of those sanctions that pushed an already militant government towards war.

[edyzmedieval]

Quite difficult not to get into it, given the geographical proximity. And simply ignoring the treaties signed with Allies would have been a no-no.

[ConjurerDragon]

Quite difficult not to get into it, given the geographical proximity. And simply ignoring the treaties signed with Allies would have been a no-no.

The western allies did exactly that at the start of WW2 by not immediately entering the war and starting an offensive into Germany within 3 weeks as Gamelin had promised (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Polish_alliance_(1921)#1939) the polish.

When we are in "what if"-land the western allies could simply have told Poland honestly (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#Beginning_of_WWII,_1939) that there is no way that they would be able or willing to do that and that Poland would fight alone for at least a month, or - after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - not before Poland would be completely occupied.

In that case the misguidedly stubborn polish government might be more willing to accept the german offer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Corridor#Nazi_German_and_Polish_diplomacy) to accept the annexation of the Free City of Danzig (which was no part of Poland) and the connection of Germany with it’s enclave Eastern Prussia by a new Autobahn in addition to a renewal of the german-polish nonaggressionpact (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact) and to join the anticomintern-pact.

As the UK only guaranteed the existance of Poland, in that case the UK could stay out of a war with Germany without breaking their word.

And if the US and the western allies would have lifted the embargo against Japan for a withdrawal from China proper (not Manchuria or the former german colony in Tsingtao (http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shandong_Peninsula) that they gained after WW1) then Japan could have decided to go north (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantokuenhttp://) instead of south once Germany attacks the USSR - a decision that was vividly discussed in Japan.

[spmetla]

You're probably right in that if the UK were to not stand by Poland then France would probably not fought for them either. Either a quick victory over Poland or Poland giving up the Danzig corridor.

Would have been interesting though for the follow up Soviet land grabs. If Germany was not at war with France and the UK would those two nations have more overtly backed Finland? Having failed to stand up to a resurgent Germany would have been bad politically but people were not celebrating the start of a war in Paris or London in 1939 as they did in 1914.
The fear of the Bolsheviks was probably stronger than the fear of the nazis at this point, there could have been a war against the USSR over the Winter War or at the very least substantial material aid to Finland.

A war via volunteers or a naval embargo of the USSR would have been a favorable recourse for the UK and France to appear strong against totalitarianism to try and regain political credibility after the failure to protect Poland.

A later German war against the USSR without a western embargo or war would have been a very odd what if scenario. There would be strong support in the West for a war against the USSR and I think they'd more likely have participated in such a war alongside Germany than standing aside as the Germans took European Russia for themselves. I can't imagine France or Britain going to war against Germany in support of the USSR in any scenario.

The issue of Japan is certainly a tricky one, I can't imagine they'd fight the British Empire, France, and the Dutch if those countries weren't already at war with Germany and Italy. The forces that those nations could bring to bear against Japan if not busy with Germany and Italy would be quite tremendous. Yes, the IJN aircraft carriers and aircraft complement were superior to anything in the West at this point in the war but the sheer size of the surface and submarine fleets that those nations could field out of Singapore, Australia, and Indochina is tremendous.
This would also have put Nationalist China firmly in the camp of the Western Allies and without ground wars to fight in Europe and Africa they would have had substantial forces to put against Japan once mobilized.
I think it's more likely that Japan would have essentially sued for a favorable peace in China than to fight the Imperial nations in a bid to try and secure oil.

Japan would as you said probably have turned North instead and participated in a German attack on the USSR. The major question would I think be when would the Germans attack the USSR? Without a successful blitzkrieg campaign against France, the low countries and Scandinavia there would not have been the foolish over confidence that the Germans had in 1941.

Would have been odd for the US in this alternate world. An economic super power but still isolationist. A minuscule Army, no draft and certainly no US interventions outside the Americas.

Also, would a British Empire not tired by a second world war have given up India or any of it's colonies?

Interesting re-reading the OP and the (including my own) replies from over a decade ago in this necro-thread!

[ReluctantSamurai]

The fear of the Bolsheviks was probably stronger than the fear of the nazis at this point, there could have been a war against the USSR over the Winter War or at the very least substantial material aid to Finland.

I don't believe this to be the case. Hitler, and his steadfast anti-Semitic policies, was perceived as the #1 threat by the US, the UK, and France. Stalin, of course, knew that sooner or later, the Soviet Union and Germany would come to blows...he was trying to make it as "later" as possible so his re-armament, and organizational plans could be in place first.

In 1938, Churchill wrote a memorandum to Lord Halifax (Britain's Foreign Secretary), urging closer co-operation with the Soviet Union, the US, and a possible united front of France, the UK, the Soviet Union, and, at the least, a benevolent neutrality with the US. For it's part, the Soviet Union informed France that it would go to war with France against Germany during the Sudetenland crisis, and that it would support a Czech request for League action if France did not honor her treaty obligations
.

After Bohemia and Moravia were annexed in 1938, the Foreign Policy Committee of the British House of Commons called for conscription, an all-party coalition government of national unity, and an alliance with the Soviet Union [FDR]. These views were also held by Britain's principal Dominions (Canada and Australia).

In the spring of 1939, the Soviet foreign minister, Maxim Litvinov, called the British ambassador to Moscow and gave him a proposal for a tripartite defensive pact between the USSR, Britain, and France. According to the proposal, each would be obligated to go to war to support any of the others in case of attack and to defend Poland, Romania, and Greece if any of those countries were attacked. [FDR]

It appears to me that even before Poland was attacked, that Germany was perceived as the primary enemy by all involved, and that alliance overtures were made by each. (Now there would be a much more plausible what-if....a USSR/British/French alliance going to war with Germany:quiet:)

Material aid was considered and actually planned for the Finns, but thankfully was never carried out as it would have been crushed either by the Soviets or the Germans, and would have gone a long ways towards pushing the USSR and Germany into an alliance (at least for the short term).

[QUOTE]A war via volunteers or a naval embargo of the USSR would have been a favorable recourse for the UK and France to appear strong against totalitarianism to try and regain political credibility after the failure to protect Poland

Would have been a disaster for the very same reasons cited above. Bolsheviks and Nazis would certainly be an odd couple, but you can't box them both in and not expect them to co-operate with each other on some level:shrug:


There would be strong support in the West for a war against the USSR and I think they'd more likely have participated in such a war alongside Germany than standing aside as the Germans took European Russia for themselves. I can't imagine France or Britain going to war against Germany in support of the USSR in any scenario

Simply not true, IMO, for all the reasons I've cited. I'd be curious as to what leads you to believe that either the US, the UK, or France would even remotely entertain such an idea:inquisitive:


The issue of Japan is certainly a tricky one, I can't imagine they'd fight the British Empire, France, and the Dutch if those countries weren't already at war with Germany and Italy. The forces that those nations could bring to bear against Japan if not busy with Germany and Italy would be quite tremendous

Only Britain was in any kind of position to bring forces to bear against Japan. The Dutch had only minimal forces covering the DEI, and France had even less. Britain had two major naval bases, Colombo on Ceylon and Singapore in Indonesia. Both have extremely long and vulnerable supply lines, and neither was in any sort of readiness to resist the Japanese (the Malayan campaign took only six weeks concluding with the surrender of Singapore on 15 Feb 1942). With only 150 or so front-line aircraft (the Brewster Buffalo as the main fighter:rolleyes:) ) and Force Z consisting of two antiquated BB's and four DD's at the ready, the outcome is a foregone conclusion (as events showed). Colombo is probably outside Japan's logistical reach, but her subs are much more capable of interdiction than Britain's, and could conceivably render the base useless.


I think it's more likely that Japan would have essentially sued for a favorable peace in China than to fight the Imperial nations in a bid to try and secure oil

Given that Japan needed access to both China's and Korea's coal for making coke (steel-making folks...not the other kind:laugh4:), why would they agree to this? To say nothing of losing face to what Japan considered as a sub-human race...


Japan would as you said probably have turned North instead and participated in a German attack on the USSR

After the debacle at Khalkin Gol in 1939, only the extreme IJA hardliners still favored war with the USSR. It had become painfully obvious that Japan's deficiencies in armor, artillery, and especially in unit mobility would make any venture against the USSR costly until those deficiencies could be rectified. (In fact, Japan's AGS felt that an initial breakthrough could be managed against the Soviets, but exploiting such a breakthrough would be extremely difficult due to Japan's lack of trucks and mechanization.) Personally, I don't believe they could even manage a breakthrough in any kind of terrain where Soviet tanks could operate:shrug:

What would Japan stand to gain other then a very long casualty list? The oil, bauxite, and rubber in the DEI was much easier to acquire against a much weaker opponent. Siberia/Mongolia has lots of.......well, one has a lot of very dry badlands, the other a lot of snow and ice:creep:

One other note; the German attack on the USSR came as a complete surprise to the Japanese as well as the Soviets. Japan's closest ally hasn't even bothered to inform her of Germany's plans to invade:oops:

[spmetla]

Simply not true, IMO, for all the reasons I've cited. I'd be curious as to what leads you to believe that either the US, the UK, or France would even remotely entertain such an idea

The very things you cite though point toward the inherent distrust between France, the UK, and the USSR.

The USSR were seen as co-belligerents during the Spanish Civil-War. The threat of exporting revolution and sponsoring socialist and communist movements in France and UK were seen as a threat.

Bear in mind that the Soviets were exclude from the discussions at Munich because they were seen as too likely to hole the chance for peace.

Up to the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact the soviets were negotiating for a full alliance with France and the UK which was refused.

I think it's unlikely that any of the Western powers would fight alongside or ally with the Germans but I was thinking more of an invasion of the USSR to secure interests and prevent German take over there. Sorta like Operation Roundup was planned in case the Nazis collapsed quickly and the US and UK would have needed to seize as much formerly occupied territory in order to prevent Soviet occupation there.

The eventual alliance was just one of convenience. The Germans were the bigger threat. Ten years earlier the Bolsheviks were seen as the bigger threat. If the Germans looked as they were to be satisfied with Poland and not make war with France whats to say that the Allies wouldn't be hostile to the Soviets which were always a threat to British and French interests in the Balkans, Turkey, Iran, and the Far East. An Alliance with Germany is a step too far, yes but hostility toward the Soviets should surely be thinkable, right?


It appears to me that even before Poland was attacked, that Germany was perceived as the primary enemy by all involved, and that alliance overtures were made by each. (Now there would be a much more plausible what-if....a USSR/British/French alliance going to war with Germany)

That alliance was far more likely but in this scenario in which the British and French abandon Poland they'd be left with another German diplomatic or military victory over Poland. Assuming molotov-ribbentrop pact is still implemented that would leave the Soviets taking the role of the belligerent bugbear in international politics as they take the Baltic states, fight the winter war, and sieze bessarabia. This would leave the Soviets as the most recent 'bad guy' in public portrayal.


Only Britain was in any kind of position to bring forces to bear against Japan. The Dutch had only minimal forces covering the DEI, and France had even less. Britain had two major naval bases, Colombo on Ceylon and Singapore in Indonesia. Both have extremely long and vulnerable supply lines, and neither was in any sort of readiness to resist the Japanese (the Malayan campaign took only six weeks concluding with the surrender of Singapore on 15 Feb 1942). With only 150 or so front-line aircraft (the Brewster Buffalo as the main fighter) ) and Force Z consisting of two antiquated BB's and four DD's at the ready, the outcome is a foregone conclusion (as events showed). Colombo is probably outside Japan's logistical reach, but her subs are much more capable of interdiction than Britain's, and could conceivably render the base useless.


In this alternate scenario the Western powers would have no pressing commitments to defend Britain, the Mediterranean and those Atlantic sea lanes. While the Asiatic fleets and forces were all at a minimum for all the above powers they had far more to draw upon together than Japan.

A Japanese war against the British, French, or Dutch would bring either of the other two powers in and eventually far more forces to bear than the Japanese could match.
Who's to say the Burma and Malaya campaigns would go as they did in our timeline if the British weren't sending all from the factory and training depot to defend their island and fight in North Africa. Same for the French and Dutch. Only the Dutch were truly and completely vulnerable but a war against them brings the bigger powers in which would never give the Japanese the breathing room to exploit the seized resources and refineries.

As for vulnerable supply lines the Japanese could only threaten the Indian ocean and perhaps the South Atlantic. The waters off South East Asia and Indonesia are shallow and bad for submarines, especially of the size and slow dive time that the Japanese used. The Japanese could threaten theater supply lines but not the means of production in their European homelands.

As for the Japanese sub fleet, it is one of examples of outstanding failures in WW2. While technically the subs were good they employed poor tactics throughout the Pacific war and were very slow to adapt to the interdiction role of the submarine. The only thing the Japanese submarine force had better than the competing navies was it's good reliable torpedoes at the start of the war.

The British submarines service adapted quickly to the needs of the Mediterranean environment and their small showing in the Far East only points to their likely adapting well to that theater as well. As for their shorter range, that was never seen as much of an issue because there were far more ports and bases availble to operate out of than the Japanese which designed their subs to threaten the West Coast and Panama (both of which only suffered nuisance attacks nothing serious).


Given that Japan needed access to both China's and Korea's coal for making coke (steel-making folks...not the other kind), why would they agree to this? To say nothing of losing face to what Japan considered as a sub-human race...

I wasn't saying that they'd give up Manchuria or Korea or not take massive concessions from the Nationalist Government. A favorable peace is just that.

[ConjurerDragon]

...
In 1938, Churchill wrote a memorandum to Lord Halifax (Britain's Foreign Secretary), urging closer co-operation with the Soviet Union, the US, and a possible united front of France, the UK, the Soviet Union, and, at the least, a benevolent neutrality with the US. For it's part, the Soviet Union informed France that it would go to war with France against Germany during the Sudetenland crisis, and that it would support a Czech request for League action if France did not honor her treaty obligations [quoted from FDR by Conrad Black].

The soviet offer came to nothing because the polish government rightfully mistrusted Stalin’s intentions and would not accept that soviet armies march over their country. I would see Stalins offer in the same light that the UK offered to send forces to help Finland in the Winterwar that had to cross Norway and Sweden and whose real purpose would have been to secure the iron in the area.

Don’t forget the Polish-Soviet war (http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War) that happened after the end of WW1 either and the polish mistrust is understandable.



After Bohemia and Moravia were annexed in 1938, the Foreign Policy Committee of the British House of Commons called for conscription, an all-party coalition government of national unity, and an alliance with the Soviet Union [FDR]. These views were also held by Britain's principal Dominions (Canada and Australia).

Austria and the Sudetenland were annexed in 1938. Bohemia and Moravia turned into a protectorate in 1939
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Czechoslovakia



In the spring of 1939, the Soviet foreign minister, Maxim Litvinov, called the British ambassador to Moscow and gave him a proposal for a tripartite defensive pact between the USSR, Britain, and France. According to the proposal, each would be obligated to go to war to support any of the others in case of attack and to defend Poland, Romania, and Greece if any of those countries were attacked. [FDR]

It appears to me that even before Poland was attacked, that Germany was perceived as the primary enemy by all involved, and that alliance overtures were made by each. (Now there would be a much more plausible what-if....a USSR/British/French alliance going to war with Germany:quiet:)


Churchill did see the USSR in the same light as Germany. Not only did the western Allies of WW1 occupy parts of Russia to prevent their equipment falling in soviet hands but the USSR was just as much a Pariah in international politics as Germany was - which was a major reason that both cooperated between the wars.



Material aid was considered and actually planned for the Finns, but thankfully was never carried out as it would have been crushed either by the Soviets or the Germans, and would have gone a long ways towards pushing the USSR and Germany into an alliance (at least for the short term).

The plans to aid Finland came twice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_R_4
and both had their problems.
The first problem is that the plan required neutral states like Sweden and Norway to let the armies of the western allies pass through. Both were not amused. Remember that military forces passing through neutral states is usually condemned by the same western allies (e.g. Belgium in WW1, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg in WW2). At the very least that would have given Germany a valid casus belli as both would be aiding the Allies.
The second problem is that the whole plans true intention was to send some token aid to Finland but to occupy the northern part of Norway and Sweden to prevent the sale of iron from there to Germany.



Would have been a disaster for the very same reasons cited above. Bolsheviks and Nazis would certainly be an odd couple, but you can't box them both in and not expect them to co-operate with each other on some level:shrug:

and odd couple? Churchill spoke out against communism almost in the same vein as Hitler, yet both cooperated with the USSR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston_Churchill#Relations_with_the_Soviet_Union
That is Realpolitik.



Given that Japan needed access to both China's and Korea's coal for making coke (steel-making folks...not the other kind:laugh4:), why would they agree to this? To say nothing of losing face to what Japan considered as a sub-human race...

Because Japan needed oil from imports more than coal from China. After all coal was already present in Korea and Manchuria (and even FDR’s embargo if understood correctly only ever asked them to get out of China proper, not Manchuria or Tsingtao).



After the debacle at Khalkin Gol in 1939, only the extreme IJA hardliners still favored war with the USSR. It had become painfully obvious that Japan's deficiencies in armor, artillery, and especially in unit mobility would make any venture against the USSR costly until those deficiencies could be rectified. (In fact, Japan's AGS felt that an initial breakthrough could be managed against the Soviets, but exploiting such a breakthrough would be extremely difficult due to Japan's lack of trucks and mechanization.) Personally, I don't believe they could even manage a breakthrough in any kind of terrain where Soviet tanks could operate:shrug:

What would Japan stand to gain other then a very long casualty list? The oil, bauxite, and rubber in the DEI was much easier to acquire against a much weaker opponent. Siberia/Mongolia has lots of.......well, one has a lot of very dry badlands, the other a lot of snow and ice:creep:

First of all losing against the USSR at Khalkin Gol lead to some feelings for revenge in part of the japanese army. It showed them that Russia was no more the pushover it had been in the war of 1905 in which imperial Russia lost Sachalin and the protectorate of Manchuria and any naval credibilty to them. However from Japans point of view (as in being even more isolationist than the US have ever been and woken up by Perry’s naval forces to a world in which imperial powers turn anyone outside Europe into colonies) that means that the USSR had become the same obvious threat that Russia had been when it pushed it’s colonial border into China three times
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Ct002999.jpg
Japan operated a while pretending not to pursue imperial ambitions but - just like the US in the Americas with their Monroe doctrine - as a liberator of native asians from colonial overlords. So war against the USSR would have been a justified war with a casus belli - after all Pu Yi was the emperor of Manchuria and the last heir of the Quing so a war to get the USSR to give back their stolen lands could at first look be justfiable for the view of the US so that they would stay neutral and deliver oil and further their agenda to be seen as the Liberator of Asians from european colonialism.



One other note; the German attack on the USSR came as a complete surprise to the Japanese as well as the Soviets. Japan's closest ally hasn't even bothered to inform her of Germany's plans to invade:oops:

Surprise - sure. Complete surprise? Everyone at the time who read "Mein Kampf" or listened to the speeches given about "Lebensraum" would have known that the Nazi party intends to go beyond just revoking the treaty of Versailles in the east sooner or later.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The very things you cite though point toward the inherent distrust between France, the UK, and the USSR

None of the Western nations were all warm and fuzzy about Stalin, but they had far more common interests with the USSR than Germany. An alliance (uneasy though it might be) was in all those nations best interests. Distrust doesn't mean common ground can't be found...which, in reality, those nations did.


If the Germans looked as they were to be satisfied with Poland and not make war with France whats to say that the Allies wouldn't be hostile to the Soviets which were always a threat to British and French interests in the Balkans, Turkey, Iran, and the Far East

Everything Hitler did pointed to Germany continuing it's belligerence. Eventually, that belligerence would engulf both France and the UK in war, because a) Germany could simply not afford to leave such a large military presence in it's rear while it sent the bulk of it's forces east; b) the humiliating Treaty of Versailles was still a bone of contention with Hitler


A Japanese war against the British, French, or Dutch would bring either of the other two powers in and eventually far more forces to bear than the Japanese could match

It's nearly 7000mi from London to Singapore by sea...that's over five weeks transit time at 10kts (average transport fleet speed). Singapore is wholly unprepared to defend itself against the kind of assault the Japanese could bring (as events showed). Any move by the British to beef up Singapore's defenses by naval means will bring a swift retaliation by the Japanese. The innovative tactic of placing multiple aircraft carriers into a single strike force will ensure that a lot of Royal Navy tonnage ends up on the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Coupled with the use of long-range land-based torpedo bombers, the fate of Force Z would be repeated.


Who's to say the Burma and Malaya campaigns would go as they did in our timeline if the British weren't sending all from the factory and training depot to defend their island and fight in North Africa

In any timeline, IMO, the outcome wouldn't be much different. The Japanese have far shorter logistic lines, far superior aircraft, far superior ships, and better tactics.


The Japanese could threaten theater supply lines but not the means of production in their European homelands

I wasn't referring to a blockade of Britain. But Japanese subs could choke off the resupply of Colombo after Singapore falls.


While technically the subs were good they employed poor tactics throughout the Pacific war and were very slow to adapt to the interdiction role of the submarine

Of course in a revisionist scenario, one side is allowed to make favorable changes while the opposing side has to make the same mistakes all over again~;)

Bottom line..."what-if's" can be a lot of fun but I prefer they be based on events that could possibly have happened and not sheer fantasy. There's no way Britain can not get drawn into the conflict, nor would they stand idle while Germany overruns Europe.

My 2cents.....

[ReluctantSamurai]

The second problem is that the whole plans true intention was to send some token aid to Finland but to occupy the northern part of Norway and Sweden to prevent the sale of iron from there to Germany.

Yep, but it would certainly do a lot to push Germany and the USSR even closer than the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact:shrug:


So war against the USSR would have been a justified war with a casus belli

Japan had always known the real fight for dominance in the PTO would come against the US. Why else build the navy they did? After Khalkin Gol, only extreme hardliners like General Tanaka (commander in Chief of the Eastern District Army), and other high-ranking officers in the Kwantung Army who wished to further their own careers wanted to continue the struggle with the USSR. But the beat-down administered by Soviet tanks and artillery, and the subsequent horrendous casualty list, was sobering to many others who had wanted war with the USSR. Japan was simply not equipped to take on the Soviets. They had neither the armor, the mechanization, nor the artillery to make any real headway. As stated earlier, in the Japanese AGS own assessment, they felt that a limited breakthrough could be managed in Mongolia, but that they didn't have the rapid mobility required to exploit such a breach of Soviet positions.

An attack north would have required the withdrawal of large numbers of troops from China to be inserted into Manchuria, which the generals prosecuting the war in China opposed. In any case, what's the objective? Oil is of paramount importance, and there's none to be had (at that time) in either Mongolia or Siberia. The DEI is weakly defended, and the IJN can now do what Japan had intended it to do...conquer the Pacific.

And that means war with Britain. Even if fantasy prevails in Europe, what happens when the Brits have to go to war with Germany's ally?

[ConjurerDragon]

Yep, but it would certainly do a lot to push Germany and the USSR even closer than the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact:shrug:

And would be a diplomatic disaster as there are certainly some states who later joined WW2 on the allied side without providing any real support just for the show, that would think otherwise if the allies would ignore the status and borders of neutral states themselves repeatedly (the anglo-soviet invasion of Iran was a case were it historically happened already).



Japan had always known the real fight for dominance in the PTO would come against the US. Why else build the navy they did?

Because of admiration for England just like Germany :2thumbsup:
Most people might see that as just a stupid joke but historically William II. of Germany (the grandson of Queen Victoria who was at her funeral) took part in ship races in England and admired the british empire and it’s navy. That is one of the reasons that he saw the future of Germany with a set of colonies and a navy just like England while ignoring that both Prussia and later Germay had better concentrated on the continent.

The japanese after being woken up by Perry’s flotilla forcing them to open their ports for US trade quickly modernized and militarized in a scramble to not become the next India, Indochina, Indonesia or whatever other nation was a colony. And in doing so they at first looked admiringly to England. They took part in freeing the diplomats from Pekings diplomats quarter as one of the 8 powers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance) just like the UK, they allied the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance) as both wanted to contain Russian expansionism, the UK indirectly supported Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance#Renewal_in_1905_and_1911) in the 1905 war against Russia as France could not come to Russias aid lest it would provoke the UK into the war, Japan joined the UK in WW1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance#Effects) (thus gaining the former german colonies of Tsingtao as a foothold in China, the Marianas and Karolinas) - that is until the UK itself ended the anglo-japanese alliance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance#Demise_of_the_treaty) in favour of closer ties to the US.

And about the japanese navy - one must not forget that the US itself at the time was an imperial power. They annexed the kingdom of Hawaii and the Phillipines (instead of letting them go free after defeating the spanish and so contradicting their own claims of being a former colonial nation itself that would seek no colonies) making them a direct neighbour of Japan and controlling the shipping lanes to the rubber and oil of southeastasia. So while the US navy was larger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet) than the japanese navy (because the US wanted a navy on both oceans) the japanese built a navy with larger battleships than the Panama Canal would let through, so that 1:1 the japanese ships could defeat their US counterparts and the reinforcements that would first come through Panama (whose independance from Columbia was the result of the US intervention as Columbia would not allow the US to militarily control a channel through it’s territorry as nowaday few remember that Panam once was part of Columbia).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And would be a diplomatic disaster as there are certainly some states who later joined WW2 on the allied side without providing any real support just for the show, that would think otherwise if the allies would ignore the status and borders of neutral states themselves repeatedly (the anglo-soviet invasion of Iran was a case were it historically happened already).



Because of admiration for England just like Germany :2thumbsup:
Most people might see that as just a stupid joke but historically William II. of Germany (the grandson of Queen Victoria who was at her funeral) took part in ship races in England and admired the british empire and it’s navy. That is one of the reasons that he saw the future of Germany with a set of colonies and a navy just like England while ignoring that both Prussia and later Germay had better concentrated on the continent.

The japanese after being woken up by Perry’s flotilla forcing them to open their ports for US trade quickly modernized and militarized in a scramble to not become the next India, Indochina, Indonesia or whatever other nation was a colony. And in doing so they at first looked admiringly to England. They took part in freeing the diplomats from Pekings diplomats quarter as one of the 8 powers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-Nation_Alliance) just like the UK, they allied the UK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance) as both wanted to contain Russian expansionism, the UK indirectly supported Japan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance#Renewal_in_1905_and_1911) in the 1905 war against Russia as France could not come to Russias aid lest it would provoke the UK into the war, Japan joined the UK in WW1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance#Effects) (thus gaining the former german colonies of Tsingtao as a foothold in China, the Marianas and Karolinas) - that is until the UK itself ended the anglo-japanese alliance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Japanese_Alliance#Demise_of_the_treaty) in favour of closer ties to the US.

And about the japanese navy - one must not forget that the US itself at the time was an imperial power. They annexed the kingdom of Hawaii and the Phillipines (instead of letting them go free after defeating the spanish and so contradicting their own claims of being a former colonial nation itself that would seek no colonies) making them a direct neighbour of Japan and controlling the shipping lanes to the rubber and oil of southeastasia. So while the US navy was larger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet) than the japanese navy (because the US wanted a navy on both oceans) the japanese built a navy with larger battleships than the Panama Canal would let through, so that 1:1 the japanese ships could defeat their US counterparts and the reinforcements that would first come through Panama (whose independance from Columbia was the result of the US intervention as Columbia would not allow the US to militarily control a channel through it’s territorry as nowaday few remember that Panam once was part of Columbia).

We were in the process of standing the Phillipines up on their own. After conquering the place, we were doing what we refuse to do now in places like Iraq and Afghanistan -- suppressing an insurgency and then taking the decades needed to build up institutions and education for a state to stand up on its own. They were independent as of 1935 (though obviously the apron strings were still there).

[ConjurerDragon]

We were in the process of standing the Phillipines up on their own. After conquering the place, we were doing what we refuse to do now in places like Iraq and Afghanistan -- suppressing an insurgency and then taking the decades needed to build up institutions and education for a state to stand up on its own. They were independent as of 1935 (though obviously the apron strings were still there).

The Phillipines already fought for their freedom against the colonial spanish rule and declared independance as the first philippine republic before Spain lost the US-Spanish war.
And instead of accepting that the independant republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Philippine_Republic) rules it’s own country the US brutally conquered the place as if Spain could cede them a foreign country like a piece of property where in the Americas they established the Monroe doctrine that essentially meant that no european power should colonize any part of the Americas or return there once having left.

Ceding a colony would be normal after a lost war, however due to the picture that the US had in WW2 of itself as the defender of democracy and liberator from colonialism vs. the later evil Empire of Japan it has to be pointed out that they behaved no better than any other colonizing nation including death camps where in average 20% died
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War#American_atrocities

And all for establishing a naval presence to protect their trade with China for the "open door" policy.
Just for comparison that would be like Japan conquering Canada from the possession of the British Empire and brutally establishing japanese rule there.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Because of admiration for England just like Germany

One does not spend millions of yen to build the finest fleet in the world, at the time, for admiration. Power in the PTO means you need to have a strong maritime navy in order to "swing the big stick". Given Japan's desire to exert their influence, their dominance, in SE Asia and beyond, they saw what the US and Britain were doing in terms of ship-building and took countermeasures...their own "big stick".


it has to be pointed out that they behaved no better than any other colonizing nation including death camps where in average 20% died

No country has ever been immune to such behavior.

Even more reason for Japan to strive for a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere...:deal:

little did anyone know that the Japanese would be far, far worse...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Phillipines already fought for their freedom against the colonial spanish rule and declared independance as the first philippine republic before Spain lost the US-Spanish war.
And instead of accepting that the independant republic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Philippine_Republic) rules it’s own country the US brutally conquered the place as if Spain could cede them a foreign country like a piece of property where in the Americas they established the Monroe doctrine that essentially meant that no european power should colonize any part of the Americas or return there once having left.

Ceding a colony would be normal after a lost war, however due to the picture that the US had in WW2 of itself as the defender of democracy and liberator from colonialism vs. the later evil Empire of Japan it has to be pointed out that they behaved no better than any other colonizing nation including death camps where in average 20% died
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War#American_atrocities

And all for establishing a naval presence to protect their trade with China for the "open door" policy.
Just for comparison that would be like Japan conquering Canada from the possession of the British Empire and brutally establishing japanese rule there.

It was an era of jingoism and imperialism. Atrocities were committed by both sides and the USA was not notably worse to the Phillipinos than we had been to our own Native Americans (admittedly not the highest of standards). Had we failed to become the dominant player in the Phillipines, it seems likely that one of the other great powers would have done so.

History is an endless tale of murder, theft, and racism. The US of A has had its share. We like to think less so than others, but probably not.

[Shaka_Khan]

I watched the Darkest Hour today. It's about how Churchill handled the early part of WII and the Dunkirk evacuation. I knew that the British originally wanted to stay out of a war. I didn't know that Churchill faced a lot of opposition in the parliament. He was originally unpopular to his colleagues. It also showed the private side of Churchill, some of which I heard of before. I wonder how the Brits think about this film? Is it close to actual history?

[spmetla]

I do know that prior to WW2 allowing Churchill to rehabilitate his reputation he was very understandably tied to the Gallipoli catastrophe and not seen as a man that thought things through completely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8234000/8234106.stm

PROS
• Churchill's rhetorical powers set him apart from all other politicians. Often imitated, never bettered, his delivery and phraseology sparked the adjective "Churchillian" And who could deny the potency of lines like "we shall fight them on the beaches", "blood, sweat and tears" and "their finest hour"?

• During his "wilderness years" in the late 1930s, Churchill was one of the first to warn against Britain's appeasement of Hitler, arguing that defence spending should be increased to combat the Nazi threat.


• A man of exceptional personal courage, Churchill was also able to make difficult political decisions. This was shown in his order to attack and destroy the French fleet, not then an enemy, at Oran in July 1940 in order to prevent it from falling into German hands.

CONS
• In 1915, as First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill was a prime mover behind the Gallipoli campaign, a disastrous attempt to land troops on the shores of the Dardanelles strait prior to capturing Istanbul and forcing route through the Black Sea to Russia. In nine months of fighting the Allies sustained 140,000 casualties and the ensuing defeat damaged Churchill's political career.

• Churchill's Budget of 1925 has become infamous for returning Britain to the gold standard, at a fixed rate of $4.80 to the pound. The aim was to restore Britain's position at the centre of the world's financial system. Many now argue that this high exchange rate made British industry uncompetitive and prolonged the slump.

• The spring of 1940 saw Churchill, once more First Lord, back the disastrous invasion of Norway. Intended to prevent the country from being occupied by Nazi Germany, the operation's failure saw a German invasion and led to the downfall of prime minister Neville Chamberlain, Churchill's predecessor in Downing Street.

[Fragony]

Galipoli? It was Australia who took a beating there

[El Barto]

Well, we can do necra-futurology.

Supposing that somehow the UK and France had not entered the war or just made a peace during the sham that was the Phony War, what if Hitler had ordered the invasion of the USSR there and then (perhaps provoked by border disputes in Poland, or defending the Baltic Germans, or whatever other pretext was needed), when the Soviet armed forces were still reeling from the purging of more or less any capable officer from their ranks - how far would the Axis have advanced? And, also, wouldn't it have forced an eventual war with the powers to the West of Germany, anyway?

[spmetla]

Galipoli? It was Australia who took a beating there

And Churchill's idea to send them there.
http://www.history.com/news/winston-churchills-world-war-disaster

Although the political head of the Royal Navy, the ambitious Churchill also fancied himself a military strategist. “I have it in me to be a successful soldier. I can visualize great movements and combinations,” he confided in a friend. The young minister proposed a bold stroke that would win the war. Abandoning his earlier plan to invade Germany from the Baltic Sea to the north, he now championed another proposal under consideration by the military to strike more than 1,000 miles to east. He proposed to thread his naval fleet through the needle of the Dardanelles, the narrow 38-mile strait that severed Europe and Asia in northwest Turkey, to seize Constantinople and gain control of the strategic waterways linking the Black Sea in the east to the Mediterranean Sea in the west. Churchill believed the invasion would give the British a clear sea route to their ally Russia and knock the fading Ottoman Empire, the “sick man of Europe” that had reluctantly joined the Central Powers in October 1914, out of the war, which would persuade one or all of the neutral states of Greece, Bulgaria and Romania to join the Allies.

[ReluctantSamurai]

what if Hitler had ordered the invasion of the USSR there and then...how far would the Axis have advanced

Without all of the experience gained during the Norwegian and Low Countries/French campaigns, probably not as far as one might think. Co-operation between close air support from the Luftwaffe and armored formations, which was so crucial for breakthroughs, would lack the refinement gained though battle testing. And who commands? Guderian would likely still be in command of only a Panzer Corps instead of a Panzer Group; Hermann Hoth would still be commanding a Motorized Corps instead of a Panzer Group; Kleist would lack the experience of the Polish, France, and Balkan campaigns; Hoepner, like the other Barbarossa Panzer Group commanders would likely still be leading a Corps also. It was the experience of these commanders, as well as that of the tank crews, that allowed the sweeping advances during the initial stages of Barbarossa.

What would German armored formations look like? The Low Countries and France showed the PzI and PzII to be wholly inadequate, and the PzIII's 37mm was incapable of defeating the French Char bis or the British Matilda frontally. Numerically, the PzI/II constituted the bulk of German armored formations in 1940 into early 1941, so production of the PzIII would have to be greatly accelerated. Without battlefield experiences from previous campaigns, would that have happened? The T26, which constituted the bulk of Soviet Mechanized Corps, was inferior to the PzIII, but outclassed the PzI & II.

And I will repeat my earlier statement about one side being able to change in revisionist scenarios, but not the other. What if Stalin heeds the warnings that Germany is going to attack? Particularly if Hitler signs some sort of agreement with France and Britain to secure his western flank should Germany attack the Soviet Union. With better front preparation, with formations deployed in depth instead of crammed too close to the border (which aided the huge initial encirclements seen historically), and a German army with far less experience, and with lower quality equipment, how far do they get?

[Scholae Palatinae]

Germans would not forgive Britain their lands and political existence. They were to be invaded sooner or later same as USSR.

[Montmorency]

And I will repeat my earlier statement about one side being able to change in revisionist scenarios, but not the other. What if Stalin heeds the warnings that Germany is going to attack? Particularly if Hitler signs some sort of agreement with France and Britain to secure his western flank should Germany attack the Soviet Union. With better front preparation, with formations deployed in depth instead of crammed too close to the border (which aided the huge initial encirclements seen historically), and a German army with far less experience, and with lower quality equipment, how far do they get?

A parallel came to mind.

In 1940 Hitler didn't quite see Britain as an enemy. It wasn't an ally exactly, but he at least somehow imagined that Britain might be brought to accommodate German designs on the Continent. To that end he prosecuted a political operation to break British morale (as opposed to destroy its military capacity). Similarly, 200 years ago Napoleon invaded Russia in order to knock it out of alignment with Britain, not to depose Tsar Alexander or destabilize Russian social relations by inciting revolution among serfs.

Because both prioritized narrow political objectives over more realistic and/or decisive alternatives, they suffered irreplaceable setbacks (Germany 2000 combat aircraft, Napoleon nearly a half-million soldiers).

[ShadesWolf]

I always found it of interest how Nazi Germany divided up France. Very much inline with Henry V France